Johannes Berg writes:
> On Wed, 2019-12-18 at 18:12 +0800, yi...@codeaurora.org wrote:
>>
>> Yes, this is a fix to the first patch. Actually, the rest of two patches
>> are also serve the same. So, are you suggesting to merge them to the
>> first patch?
>
> Yes.
>
>> Previouly, I had added
On Wed, 2019-12-18 at 18:12 +0800, yi...@codeaurora.org wrote:
>
> Yes, this is a fix to the first patch. Actually, the rest of two patches
> are also serve the same. So, are you suggesting to merge them to the
> first patch?
Yes.
> Previouly, I had added Toke's signature in this patch but
在 2019-12-13 17:56，Johannes Berg 写道：
On Fri, 2019-12-13 at 15:19 +0800, Yibo Zhao wrote:
In a loop txqs dequeue scenario, if the first txq in the rbtree gets
removed from rbtree immediately in the ieee80211_return_txq(), the
loop will break soon in the ieee80211_next_txq() due to schedule_pos
On Fri, 2019-12-13 at 15:19 +0800, Yibo Zhao wrote:
> In a loop txqs dequeue scenario, if the first txq in the rbtree gets
> removed from rbtree immediately in the ieee80211_return_txq(), the
> loop will break soon in the ieee80211_next_txq() due to schedule_pos
> not leading to the second txq in
In a loop txqs dequeue scenario, if the first txq in the rbtree gets
removed from rbtree immediately in the ieee80211_return_txq(), the
loop will break soon in the ieee80211_next_txq() due to schedule_pos
not leading to the second txq in the rbtree. Thus update schedule_pos
to previous node once
